From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 18:01:06 +0200 From: Antonio Quartulli Message-ID: <20131002160106.GA1939@neomailbox.net> References: <20131001202648.GT11097@lunn.ch> <20131002130548.GA24077@pandem0nium> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131002130548.GA24077@pandem0nium> Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] Alfred batadv-vis json conformance Reply-To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Id: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking --OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 03:05:48PM +0200, Simon Wunderlich wrote: > > I'm also wondering if label and gateway could have more meaningful > > names? TQ and host? Also, is TT the best? >=20 > Hm, that is a good question. We also have the batman v with new metrics > coming up, I'm not sure how to handle these (maybe Antonio has some > idea?). It is not the TQ-value in the label after all, but some kind of > ETX-converted value (255/TQ if i remember correctly). I think the ETX stuff comes from OLSR (but I don't know the details). I agree with Simon that we should find a generic name (e.g. metric ?) but I= am not sure we can represent this value in a "algorithm-generic" fashion (and = maybe we don't want to). >=20 > Maybe we can change the names to: > * for neighbors: router->nexthop > * TT: "gateway" -> "client", "router" -> "node", maybe also change TT to= clients? TT is specific to the mechanism we use to announce clients. Moving to the generic "clients" could also be ok. > >=20 > > I would like suggestions and comments from others with more experience > > with json. Is the basic structure O.K. Are there better names to use? > >=20 > > There is also the issue of can we change the format of the current > > output. Is it considered an ABI? Should I add a third format string > > which can be passed with -f to produce true json, and leave the old > > format as is, for backward compatibility? >=20 > As explained above, I'd like to keep the old format, so a third format > string should be used. It would be nice (if possible) to consider BATMAN V > at this point too to avoid adding many more formats in the future, but > generally I'm okay with adding new formats. >=20 I have to think about what batman v may require. But I don't see snything special right now. Cheers, --=20 Antonio Quartulli --OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJSTENCAAoJEADl0hg6qKeOcQYP/jQEYh1BaI9kVz41lDrvH973 AROyO5LjeTL07J+RdoEV5wEtBhhAf7oDmbTHyBJaUgmsd/DDId+b1Ix3ZeleFtbi TXJVQ9qgi+JaJJSC5QpECgKhe+PYNphQyXAjwGUTNW3oH+pmD8cZmvQhGF2iVxxW PchAx2M/KA1nOsYbB/J3dnyhEG3x5IXTX4d5iAfLGxZ+ZnZrufogocp78jySm4gy 0RR5yHIkWr7pvXkX8JReZRM6MLKD7o1WMwmzbG6o8GBUkl+KjS1EWFmF7CEDE6iD 7afIlrLIg9jlfpHXuwxsU9v1MujvOSbKPqxS41rs5o1FGOElOjXdVSUPruuXCA7S 8sA+koObNE8frzcl2gDD1+qiIqqe/eloW8Ci+il2Bbtv8d9CVsRW9qX3Xq0WeORO yJQ1dpdbw7qEwnyxCzPvn3bNd3YbuFQXOR+0/poqTn74mHHeEB2TFE/B4Y+4Nelt /HgYgYK2QpiMekOKC1gOsQNPvvRimbcI7vDEI5l7ExWeFgkFpZOHzY07XFUOEhIA 9Dpv/ws8E5qdao54McN2uFETGzgcfB6H6q7DeItK7QmtE4RbjyTrT4/TIP+lIDpb wx2mNiwtz9qoPvJZfl170xQshThHWV4bIbHoniGCcLebKGGYCbuka1F+y0+M1Z6z HlQQWd7052X3P6YNiE1r =vpBD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG--